Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Promise #5

The last two promises made by the deacon to be are oriented specifically toward him. They are promises to nourish oneself spiritually so that the deacon can then nourish those he is called to serve. In order to be nourished spiritually, one has to pray and to imitate Christ. The 5th promise is resolving to have a ever-growing prayer life.

The bishop asks the ordinand:

PROMISE #5: Do you resolve to maintain and deepen the spirit of prayer that is proper to your way of life and, in keeping with this spirit and what is required of you, to celebrate faithfully the Liturgy of the Hours with and for the People of God and indeed for the whole world?

Prayer is the 'job description' of the deacon and priest. Even as a seminarian, I am asked at least a half dozen times a day to pray for someone. Deacons and priests are called to a life of prayer. We pray privately for ouselves and for others. We lead prayer publically, especially in the liturgy and in devotions. Lastly, we help to foster an atmosphere of prayer in our parish and in our parishioners.

For the deacon and the priest, one of the most pivotal elements of prayer to sustain a healthy and Godly life is the Liturgy of the Hours. Also called the Divine Office, this is a set of prayers that priests, deacons and religious vow to pray daily. There are five prayer times, or hours, each day. These consist of: morning prayer (prayed shortly after rising), daytime prayer (prayed sometime between 9 AM and 4 PM), evening prayer (prayed in the late afternoon or early evening), night prayer (prayed before one goes to bed) and Office of the readings (can be prayed anytime during the day). These prayers are the backbone of the prayer life for the ordained. Our day should be structured around these prayers and taking time out five times a day to pray the Office helps keep one focused on God.

The five prayer times for Divine Office each consist of psalms from Scripture as well as a short reading from the Old or New Testament and a closing prayer. What is most important for the ordained to remember is that we pray the Office not only for ourselves but also for all of God's people. The psalms that are prayed always have a theme to them. Some of the psalms are prayers of thanksgiving, some laments and words of sorrow, some of prayers of joy, some prayers of petition and some cries of dispair and ultimately hope. When we pray one of the hours of the Office, we may not be feeling the same emotions as the psalm expresses. For example, the psalms on Fridays are usually ones of sorrow and lament reflecting the sorrow of Good Friday. I may be in a happy mood that day, but that doesn't mean that the psalm has no meaning for that day. Somewhere in the world, there is a person who IS feeling sorrow, lament and grief. We pray the Office not solely for ourselves but for the people of the whole world. We pray the Office for that person who is in sorrow or grief. It is for others, especially, that we are called to pray the Office each day.

Prayer is so central to the life of the deacon and priest. It is not only central to us for our spiritual health and wellbeing but also to help remind us that we are servants of God's people. We are called to tend to the spiritual needs of the faithful. Our prayer, especially the Divine Office, helps us to be aware of those who are in spiritual need so we may properly minister to them and ultimately they may draw closer to God. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 18:57 | link | comments (1) |
rite of deacon

What to blog...what to blog...what to blog...

Have you ever had one of those days when your brain has no intention of cooperating with you for that day? Well, I am having one of those days. We’ve had such a wide variety of discussion topics in the past few weeks that you would think I’d have all kinds of topics to choose from. But I’ve been racking my brain all day and have not been able to decide what topic to blog about. I guess it could be like going to a buffet restaurant and having so many choices of food that you cannot decide which to try. I experience this when I am back home and my Dad and I go to the breakfast bar at Sirloin Stockade. My solution in that situation is to try one of everything, which is probably why my belt size never seems to go down!! Unfortunately, I cannot blog on every topic we’ve discussed in the same way as I can try everything at the breakfast bar. But, I have come up with a very interesting proposition (I guess my brain is at least working minimally).

I would like you, my readers, to suggest some topics you’d like us to discuss on the blog. The topics need to be about faith, current world issues, liturgy or some other element proper to our blog environment. I can’t promise to blog on each topic (unless I only get one, which I hope will not happen) but I would like to give my readers a chance to suggest topics of their own interest and thought for the blog. After all, you are the ones who read the blog and you should have blog entries that are of your own interst to read. You can simply suggest a topic by commenting to this blog entry and you can do it anonymously if you wish. I will do the best I can to tackle the topics posed and I will certainly welcome comments and insights that can add to these topic discussions.

Lastly, in the next two days or so, I will become an uncle for the first time. I am hoping to hear the happy news tomorrow afternoon or evening. If I know before my blog entry tomorrow night, I'll pass out virtual cigars at that time

I look forward to reading some of the topic suggestions from you and I am certain that they'll be awesome topics as the comments we have had to this blog so far have been outstanding. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 15:03 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Stem Cell battle: embryonic vs. adult

Kenrick had a workshop today on stem cells and cloning. Fr. Richard, the vice-rector at Kenrick and an noted authority on stem cells, gave a wonderful presentation and there are some very valuable points he made that I want to address in this blog entry. He was followed by Larry Weber, who is the Executive Director of Missouri Catholic Conference. Lastly, Molly Kertz, the Director of the St. Louis Archdiocese Respect Life Office, gave a presentation. The talks focused on two cental issues, stem cell research and cloning, and the existing political challenges concerning these issues.

One of the most impressive facts Fr. Richard gave was that embryonic stem cells (ESC) have resulted in NO cures or treatment of any diseases in humans and its use in animal tests have usually produced tumors in the animal. On the other hand, adult stem cells (ASC) have been used to successfully cure and treat over 65 various diseases from blindness to diabetes to cancer. In a number of cases, a blind person was able to see for the first time using adult stem cells to regenerate the cornea. In the area of diabetes, several persons with Type I diabetes had adult stem cells injected into their pancreas and this resulted in them no longer needing ANY insulin injections and they now live a healthy, diabetes-free life ( www.stemcellresearch.org).

In focusing on embryonic stem cells, there are many factors to consider. First, because ESCs are designed for rapid, pluripotent growth in embryos, meaning they can more readily become any type of cell when in the embryo, they are unstable and unpredictable when implanted in adults. In fact, ESCs often create monster tumors containing different cell types such as hair, bone, and teeth.

Secondly, is the question of whether ESC is primarily for patient cures or patent profit. A wonderful article by Jean Swenson, a quadriplegic due to a car accident in 1980, points out the patient vs. patent problem. She says:

Because complex safety problems must be overcome before ESCs are medically usable, ESC research provides greater research and patent potentials for scientists, research institutions, and biotech industry...the fact that research and industry stand to gain financially through publicly funded ESC research whether or not any effective therapies are ever developed should raise red flags to those expecting cures from such research (Minnesota Daily).

Directly connected with stem cell research is the issue of cloning. While the details of the scientific process used to create human embryo clones for stem cell research are complicated, one can understand the facts when they are presented honestly. For example, embryonic stem cell advocates try to convince people that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), used for creating embryos from which embryonic stem cells are extraced, is not cloning. The reality is that human life is possible upon SCNT and that this procedure is exactly the same for both reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

I will blog specifically on cloning in a future blog. I will close this blog with some truths that debunk the dishonest statments and myths of cloning and stem cell research:

MYTH: Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is a recent medical breakthrough that can use a patient's own cells and an unfertilized human egg to make ES cells that match the patient's genetic makeup. ES cell research does not use or harm an embryo or fetus in a woman's uterus (http://www.missouricures.com/keyfacts.php).

TRUTH: Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is a technical term that describes the process for creating a cloned human embryo. This is the same procedure that produced "Dolly the Sheep" and now scientists want to use it to clone humans (http://www.nocloning.org/page.asp?id=2&name=Learn%20The%20Facts).

MYTH: Adult stem cells can turn into a limited number of related cell types. ESC have the potential to turn into any type of cell or tissue in the human body. As a result, ESC could provide cures for many diseases and injuries that cannot be cured with adult stem cells (http://www.missouricures.com/keyfacts.php).

TRUTH: Embryonic stem cells are hard to control, and hard to grow in a reliable way. They have "minds" of their own, and embryonic stem cells are often unstable, producing unexpected results as they divide, or even cancerous growths (http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm).

MYTH: (Embryonic) stem cells made with the SCNT process have the added advantage of being made with DNA from a patient's own cell – thus eliminating the need for a genetically matching donor and the problem of immune system rejection (http://www.missouricures.com/keyfacts.php).

TRUTH: There are several excellent alternatives to embryos, and they are actually better potential sources of stem cells for numerous reasons. The best sources are from our own organs termed "adult stem cells" or "tissue stem cells." One distinct advantage of using our own adult stem cells is that there will be no transplant rejection, since it is our own tissue. Use of human embryonic stem cells will require lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue (National Review).

These are just some of the many, many, many myths that are floating around toting embryonic stem cells and downplaying adult stem cells. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 17:07 | link | comments |
blog

An excellent question...

Usually when I receive a comment to a blog, I respond within the comments section, but in this case I am going to make an exception because the question is such an excellent one and a very legitimate one often asked by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

This question was posted as a comment to my dialogue this past Friday describing the 4th promise made by a deacon at his ordination. The person who posted this question, and her husband, have been close friends of mine for years and she always has such insightful and challenging questions. She asked the following:

You said "We ARE the bridegroom to our bride, the Church. When we are ordained to the diaconate, we promise celibacy in order to be completely faithful to our bride." Can you explain the idea that priests/deacons are the bridegroom to the Church? Coming from a Protestant background, I've been taught that Christ is the Bridegroom. How is it that priests can fill that role?

First, I want to point out that my friend is VERY insightful by using the words 'priests/deacons' in that the concept of the ordained as bridegroom applies primarily to the priest. I my case, many of my insights on the promises made by the deacon spill over into and apply to the priest as well. This is mostly because I am being ordained to the transitional diaconate, God willing, and not the permanent diaconate. The transitional diaconate is for those who will be ordained priests soon thereafter, hence it is a transitional order. Many of the promises we make foreshadow those necessary for a priest.

Anyway, while my friend's question is important in helping the laity understand the relationship of the Church and its ordained ministers, it is absolutely vital to a priest in understanding his role. My friend is correct in saying that Christ is the bridegroom. The Church is the bride, the beloved of Christ and Ephesians 5:25 makes this clear in saying: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her "

The Catechism of the Catholic Church beautifully expresses the relationship between Christ as bridegroom, Church as bride and the place of the priest in this 'marriage'. In para. 796, which is actually a quote from St. Augustine, it says: ...it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis)... Another passage, from para. 1348 says, ...It is in representing him [Jesus] that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides...

In essence, my friend is absolutely right in that Christ is the bridegroom. The Catholic priest, by his ordination, is configured to Christ and acts in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitas in Latin). If Christ is the bridegroom and the Church his bride, the priest becomes the bridegroom by his acting in the person of Christ.  

In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body...This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis - Catechism para. 1548

Hopefully, this explanation helps my readers understand the role and relationship of the priest to Jesus and His Church. If anyone, including my friend, would like a more in-depth explanation, please feel free to ask and I will do my best to elaborate more. Hopefully, the explanation also helps us to realize that the priest himself MUST not only understand his role and relationship, but also LIVE out this role and relationship. That is why the sex crisis of 2002 hurt the Church as Body so much. The priests who committed these horrible acts disgraced their relationship of acting in the person of Christ, not to mention the devastation caused to their victions. These priests did NOT act in the person of Christ and did NOT serve His Body the Church. They not only did not live their role and relationship but denied the very elements and thereby denied the truth of the priesthood.

I want to humbly thank my friend for posting this comment and question. Not only was it a very insightful question that is good for all to know, but it also challenged me to explain what I am called to live for the rest of my life as an ordained minister of the Catholic Church. Thank you very much for the question and for giving me the chance to reflect on the importance of this relationship.

I want to close with a paragraph from a well respected and very knowlegable person of the Catholic faith.

Christ is the High Priest and Bridegroom...the priest acts in Christ's place as the Bridegroom in the celebration of the Eucharist, the Eternal Wedding Feast, here, in time. The spiritual life is a courtship...the celibate priest approaches Christ's Bride, the Church, in Persona Christi, (in the person of Christ) at the altar of God, and brings Divine Life to her in their shared sacramental love in the Eucharist. Written by John Mallon, who is contributing editor to Inside the Vatican magazine and was a consultant at the 2002 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops when the sexual crisis was discussed. You can read his whole article titled, The Nuptial Nature of the Church, at: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2127

As always, I encourage comments or questions (especially so insightful ones such as this) and I promise to respond to the best of my ability. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 19:41 | link | comments |
blog

Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Promise #4

The latter three of the six promises focus specifically on how the deacon is to live as an ordained clergyman of the Catholic Church. The fourth promise made by the ordinand is the foundation for the fifth and six promises and is the most counter-cultural of all six promises. I am, of course, speaking of the promise of celibacy. The bishops asks the ordinand:

Promise #4: Do you resolve to keep for ever this commitment to remain celibate as a sign of your dedication to Christ the Lord for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, in service to God and man?

This promise is so rich in both its call of the ordinand in living his ordained life and by its elegance in which celibacy is embraced for the good of the Church.

This promise begins by asking for a commitment. Now, it's no surprise that men don't like this word. Just ask any woman who has been dating a man for awhile! Yet, commitment is absolutely vital to any life-long mission. A commitment can only be made willingly and by one who is consciously aware of that to which they are commiting. It is the person's promise to undertake whatever role with total dedication and an open, loving heart. A promise of commitment is not limited to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Couples, at their wedding, commit themselves to the other openly and with total dedication. Godparents commit themselves to the assistance of bringing up the child in the Caholic faith. Commitment is very important in the life of the Church.

The word 'celibate' is probably feared, misunderstood and dismissed by the majority of the people in the world today. Many, including Catholics, wonder how the Church can impose this adherence to celibacy on the clergy. That statement is the focal point in which every thought following it regarding celibacy is misconstrued. If the ordinand or even a seminarian views celibacy as something forced on them by the Church or as a 'hoop' they have to jump through in order to become a priest, that person needs to seriously consider whether he is being called to be a priest. God doesn't force anything on anyone and only calls those who can freely accept celibacy to be His priests. Celibacy MUST be embraced willingly, lovingly and without hesitation or doubt if the ordinand wishes to faithfully and fully serve the People of God. This has been the practice of the Western Church for the past 1800 years and is not going to change. Acceptance of celibacy means a life-long commitment and not 'jumping through a hoop' hoping celibacy will be abolished in the near future.

Some might ask, "why promise celibacy? The Eastern Church does not require celibacy." That statement is only partially true. The Eastern Church does not require celibacy of its priests, but it is required of its bishops. A married priest in the Eastern Church can NEVER become a bishop. This discipline compliments the Western Church's understanding of celibacy as being necessary to fully give the gift of self to God in order to humbly, faithfuly and unreservedly shepherd His people. Beyond this, the rite itself expresses the beautiful symbol of celibacy as a complete dedication to the serivce of the Church. We ARE the bridegroom to our bride, the Church. When we are ordained to the diaconate, we promise celibacy in order to be completely faithful to our bride.

We also promise celibacy as a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven to come and the ordained are examples of the world to come. This does not mean, in any way, that marriage on earth is a bad thing. On the contracy, it is God's plan for the continuation of His people through the conjugal act within marriage. Yet, Christ tells us that in the Kindom to come, we neither marry or are given in marriage (Lk. 20:35). Heaven will be bliss far beyond any human understanding. Sexual intimacy will be replaced with spiritual intimacy and communion with one another and with God. Celibates are witnesses to this here on earth.

Lastly, we promise celibacy in order to completely dedicate ourselves to service of God and man. Christ tells us that one cannot serve two masters. Jesus says, "he will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other" (Lk. 16:13). As ministers for God of His people, we MUST choose our master. Is our master God or is our master earthly pleasures, such as sexual intimacy? Couples make the same choice on their wedding day in vowing to be a total gift of self to their spouse for the whole of their lives. They offer themself to the other totally, body and spirit, for the love of the other and for God. I like to say that marriage is a threesome - you, your spouse and God. This holds true to the ordained as well. We are a threesome in our marriage to the Church - us, our bride the Church and God. Our celibacy allows us to totally give ourselves to the service of God and His people rather than holding back a part of ourselves that is dedicated to another or to my own earthly desires.

Hopefully, I have helped you, my readers, to better understand the reason, dignity and need of celibacy in the lives of the ordained. While this promise is not absolute (permanent deacons and converted Protestant ministers who seek Catholic priesthood can be married), it is the norm for well over 90% of the ordained clergy of the Catholic Church. A Catholic priest friend of mine, who is a convert from the Lutheran church and married, says that while he loves his wife and children dearly, he would be ten times a better priest if he was celibate and completely married to God. His sentiment is that of the vast majority of married priests in the Western Church. They see, the most clearly, that celibacy allows one to completely give oneself to God and to serve his people. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 20:49 | link | comments (1) |
rite of deacon

George Weigel visits Kenrick

Kenrick-Glennon Seminary had the privilege of hosting George Weigel, author of Pope John Paul II's biography Witness to Hope, as a guest lecturer this evening. He held a question and answer forum at 3:00 PM this afternoon just for the seminarians and the Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick Lecture was held at 7:30 PM after a fabalous 5 course meal.

The reason I mention this lecture is to bring up a portion of his discussion that will be of interest to my readers. Although his topic for the lecture was Benedict XVI and his Papacy, he spent some time discussing the effect Islam will have on Christianity in the next few decades. He approached this from a number of angles. In our forum, he was asked whether he thought the one disappointment of JPII, the failure to re-unify the East and West, was something Benedict XVI would seek to fulfill. In giving his answer, he felt that one of the most influential factors in possible re-unification was the fact that Islam is undiscriminatingly hostile to both the Orthodox and Latin Church, but especially the Orthodox as they have more of a presence in the Muslim countries. It was his contention that if that pressure increased and if violent attacks against the Orthodox arose, the East would likely pursue re-unification partially to present a much stronger and more dominant front in protecting and defending the faith.

In the lecture itself, he pointed out that the dialogue between the Vatican and Islam was at best civil, but that any real progress is stalled because of Muslim's absolute intolerance of any faith that is not Islam. In most Muslim countries converting from Islam to any other faith is a capital crime for which one can be executed. The current case in Afghanistan in which a Muslim man converted to Christianity and is now on trial facing execution is a prime example of this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188936,00.html). A second issue is the tendacy toward violence. Weigel said that while the Qu'ran promotes peace, Muslims and especially the more radical sects have either chosen to ignore this concept or abandoned this concept altogether in favor of terrorism and widespread violence. Obstacles such as these, Weigel said, really prevent constructive and productive dialogue because it requires reform of the current positions on the part of Muslims. Ultimately, he felt that the hostility against Christians by Muslims will only increase before it has any chance of waning.

While I don't know how exactly this plays into our recent conversations on Muslim-Catholic relations, it does give me pause in some of the assertations that Muslims are generally peaceful. Although I argued that Islam as a religion is peaceful, I failed to point out that just because the faith itself is peaceful it doesn't necessarily follow that its people, in this case Muslims, will actually practice this tenet of the faith. It seems that George Weigel hold this belief as well and feels that until Muslims reform their ways to return to the peace implied in the Qu'ran, the tension between Islam and Christianity will not disappear.

I thought his insights were worthy of mentioning here, especially because they seem to shed some new light and understanding on our topic. I also figure that since I am just a humble seminarian and he is one of the leading authors and theologians of the Catholic faith and indeed of the world, his views might have a little more weight. I would welcome any comments or insights to what he said. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 23:14 | link | comments |
blog

Quick revisit of our Muslim series

Its a busy week here at Kenrick, so this blog is going to be rather short. I'll make up for it with a extra long one in a few days (I'm not sure if that is a promise or a threat...I'll let you decide).

In mid February, we spent several blogs discussing Muslims and the Islamic faith. We hade a wide variety of views and this was one of the more interactive topics we have had. In one of the blogs, I pointed out that from what I understood, Islam was a peaceful religion. Well, it seems that I have some who disagree with me on both Islam being peaceful and being a religion. I subscribe to Karl Keating's semi-monthly e-newsletter and this week his e-letter was titled, "THE CHURCH AND ARIANISM, THE CHURCH AND ISLAM NO REAL PROSPECT FOR REFORM"

In the e-letter, which you can read at Catholic Answers, he attempts to show a number of things regarding Islam. First, he points out that many people try to say Islam is just like Christianity only a bit different, but that this is a gross misunderstanding of Islam. Second, he compares this misbelief with heresies in the early Chruch. Lastly, he puts forward that Islam is not just a religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, etc, rather an ideology that believes it is meant to rule the world.

I'd encourage you to check out this e-letter by Karl Keating and I would be very interested in my reader's thoughts and insights both in comparing what was said in the e-letter with our discussions here and how his statements on Islam sit with you. I look forward to hearing what you think. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 19:03 | link | comments (2) |
blog

Debates over church architecture

Throughout history, church architecture has alway been one of the trademarks of the Catholic Church. Roman, Romanesque and Gothic are just three forms of architecture whose styles were almost completely defined by the designs of the cathedrals and churches of their time. Some of the most beautiful structures in the world are Catholic churches.

I thought we'd take a look at architecture in our series on liturgical abuses. Whiles usually not an actual abuse, nearly all of the debates related to church architecture are either over placement of structures or their construction. While these two elements might seem minor, their importance rests upon how they help or hinder in proper and devout worship within the church. There tends to be three issues that commonly cause conflict in church architecture.

The first issue of architectural debates centers around the placement of the tabernacle. This debate focuses on whether the tabernacle should be in the sanctuary or in another suitable place. Church doctrine doesn't seem to be very helpful in its guidelines as it advocates both. Paragraph 938, section 2, of the Code of Canon Law states:

The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.

This would seem to suggest that the tabernacle should be in or very near the sanctuary. Yet, paragraph 315 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says:

(the tabernacle should be) either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration; Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful's private adoration and prayer and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.

This debate is ongoing and doesn't seem to have a clear cut solution. For me, I find it rather annoying when I enter a church and spend five minutes trying to locate the tabernacle so I can properly reverence the Blessed Sacrament reserved within. If I have to wander around for a few minutes to actually find the tabernacle, then I feel its placement in that church violates the paragraph 938 above.

The second and third issue concern the altar and the sanctuary. We briefly addressed the altar in a previous blog. The debate about the altar and sanctuary I want to address here is their placement. In looking at their proper placement, the GIRM says:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns (para. 299).

While this usually means the altar (and sanctuary) should be in the front of the church, some have interpreted the words 'to be truly the center' to mean that the placement of the altar should be in the center of the church with the congregation completely encircling the altar (and sanctuary). Yet, if one examines the entire paragraph, this would seem to violate a part of the instruction. First, if the instruction suggests the altar should be in the center of the church, why would it point out that the altar should be built apart from the wall? Secondly, how can the Mass be celebrated at the altar facing the people if the priest has his back to half the congregation? Again, this is a debate that is ongoing and not likely to be resolved soon. I do know that when I walk into a church with the altar in the center and the people surrounding it, I think of the PBS show from my youth in which satirist Mark Russell was on the dais in the center and the audience encircled the dais. While this might be suitable for a comedy act, I have trouble with it being suitable for a Mass.

The debates over these elements of church architecture can become very heated and can even cause a rift in the local church. A good example of this is the uproar against the renovations of the Milwaukee archdiocese cathedral by Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, now Archbishop Emeritus. Archbishop Weakland authorized extensive changes in the renovation of the cathedral including moving the high altar to the center of the cathedral, the placing the organ in former location of the high altar and the obsquere location of the Eucharist Chapel where the tabernacle was to be placed. Weakland struggled with the Vatican, specifically Cardinal Jorge Medina who is the head of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, over the renovations. Cardinal Medina had objected to the transfer of the main altar to the center of the cathedral coupled with placement of an apparently prominent organ in the apse where the original high altar was. He also objected to the size and location of a eucharistic chapel, and the removal of two confessionals. In addition, he said, "it would seem'' that the original high altar with its baldacchino, a domed canopy, "should be retained, given also that it is a most suitable location for the reservation of the Most Blessed Sacrament"  (http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/weakland.htm).

Weakland stated that Cardinal Medina "has not proven that I broke any liturgical norms or canons" regarding the proposed renovations. His proposed renovations ultimately went forward as planned. I have included a picture of the cathedral before and after the renovations. I will let you, my readers, decide if the changes help or hinder in the worship of the faithful.

Again, I encourage questions, comments or insights regarding liturgical abuses and liturgical norms. I plan to continue this series in my next blog with a look at the sacred objects used at Mass. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 16:34 | link | comments |
blog

An in-depth look at liturgical abuses

One of my faithful readers, Estevan D. Molina (who has an awesome blog site by the way) asked a very good question regarding our discussion on liturgical abuses. The question was: "Let's say that a liturgical abuse has taken place, would it be appropriate to report the matter to the Bishop immediately to stop the abuse?" Although I responded briefly in the comments of that blog entry, the questions is such an excellent one that I thought we'd spend at least one blog on it.

My own personal opinion (opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the management or this station) is that ALL liturgical abuses affect the Church to various degrees. However, some abuses are so minor that a) the affect on the Church is almost non-existent b) reporting it may be more trouble than its worth and c) in all likelihood the bishop will not correct the abuse. I say this last point not because I think the bishop is lazy or doesn't care, but because the reality is that most of these abuses have no bearing on the Mass. For example, say the priest is leaving the sanctuary at the sign of peace to shake hands with the congregation. While the priest is not supposed to leave the sanctuary during the Mass and while the rubrics state that "each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest," the reality is that this 'abuse' has little or no bearing on the Mass and does not make the Mass illicit or invalid.

It is probably time to explore the two words 'illicit' and 'invalid' used in reference to the Catholic Church. Both of these words are used to describe a liturgical abuse. This can be an abuse of any sacrament, but for our purposes we are going to restrict ourselves to the Mass. An invalid Mass is one in which the abuse was so great that the consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. In essence, the Mass never takes place because Jesus is not present in the bread and wine. Because an invalid Mass is specifically associated with the consecration of the elements, the abuses that can cause this are very specific as well. Basically, a Mass is invalid if any of these occur:

• The celebrant is not a validly ordained male priest/bishop who has been ordained by a legitimate bishop,
• The celebrant does not intend to consecrate the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. (I want to explore this one more in-depth later),
• The celebrant does not pronounce the words necessary for the consecration of the elements,
• The celebrant attempts to consecrate elements other than real bread and wine.

These are really the only situations that invalidate the Mass. These are VERY serious abuses and should be IMMEDIATELY reported to the bishop. Their level of harm to the Church is astronomical. If any of my readers should witness one of the above abuses, and I pray to God you never do, please report it to your bishop immediately but also understand that once you realize the fact that the abuse is invalidating, you MUST NOT participate in this 'Mass' or receive the bread and wine that was 'consecrated.' If you have participated in the past before you became aware of the invalidating nature of the abuse, you need not worry as you are never culpable for participating in an invalid Mass when you were not aware of the abuse.

While a invalid Mass is a very rare and grave matter, an illicit Mass is much more common and does not void the Mass. The range of actions that are illicit are very broad and varying. It is important to point out that an illicit Mass is still a valid Mass and the conscrecrated bread and wine truly are the Real Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. What an illicit Mass does is detract from the holiness and reverence of the Mass but does not devoid the congregation of the graces received in the Mass. The factors that can make a Mass illicit are so broad that I cannot list them all here. I will point out some of the more common ones and whether these should be reported to the bishop or not.

• Holding hands during the Our Father has become commonplace, but it is an illicit addition to the Liturgy (this is so common that it really is not worth reporting to the bishop and only minutely affects the Mass).
• In the Western Church liturgical dance is not allowed whatsoever as has been mentioned in a previous post titled, "Is it liturgical worship or liturgical abuse" (this is a fairly serious abuse in that it causes misunderstanding as to what the Mass is and that the central focus should be Christ. This abuse should be reported to the bishop).
• The homily may never be preached by a lay man, lay woman, or non-ordained religious, such as a nun or brother (this abuse might occur on rare occassion in parishes, but if it is commonplace for that parish then it needs to be reported).
• One may not give oneself Holy Communion, such as themselves taking a host from the paten. Only the priest may administer himself Holy Communion and all others must receive it from the priest, deacon or extraordinarly minister (this abuse, if occurring often in the parish needs to be reported).

These are just some of the most common abuses that make a Mass illicit. Again, this does not void the Mass or change the fact that the True Body and Blood of Christ are present in the elements consecrated. It does cause harm and scandal within the Church, though.

I want to close by giving some advice for reporting liturgical abuses. When you observe what you believe to be a liturgical abuse, first approach the priest and explain what you have witnessed and that you believe this is an abuse of the liturgy. Try to have documentation that proves this is an abuse, such as the appropriate paragraph from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (commonly called the rubrice of the Mass) or the section of the Code of Canon Law that deals with this abuse. Both these documents can be found online by clicking on the previous links. Always be kind, charitable and sincere while at the same time standing solidly against this abuse. If the priest fails to address this abuse or refuses to do so, you will then need to decide whether to contact your chancery office to report the abuse. Most dioceses have a Liturgy Office to which the abuse can be reported. Ultimately, when you have reported the abuse to the bishop via the chancery, you have done your duty as a faithful and devout Catholic. I pray that you, my readers, are not witnessing numerous liturgical abuses in you dioceses, but they do occur and so we must be viligant.

If you have questions whether something is an abuse, please feel free to post what you witnessed in the comments section and I will be happy to address it. And as always, if you have any questions, comments or insights, please feel free to post them. I will most likely continue our discussion on abuses in the next blog entry. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 18:27 | link | comments |
blog

Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Promise #3

This week, we explore the third promise made by the deacon at his ordination. The first two promises sought to define whom the deacon serves. The third promise shifts to outlining the duties of the deacon. It calls one to live and preach the faith. Specifically, the bishop asks the ordinand the following question:

PROMISE #3: Do you resolve to hold fast to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience, as the Apostle urges, and to proclaim this faith in word and deed according to the Gospel and the Church's tradition?

In looking at this promise, the ordinand is immediately called to fully embrace the faith AND to believe deeply in that faith, hence the words 'with a clear conscience.' The need to fully embrace and deeply believe the faith is absolutely vital to the role of the ordained. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Tim. 3:9, says of the deacon these exact words: "hold fast to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience." If the deacon cannot accept EVERY tenet of the faith, he cannot faithfully serve the Church. Many 'Catholics' today advocate a cafeteria-style Catholic Church where one picks and chooses which elements of the faith he or she wishes to adhere to. Someone of this thinking might say, "I accept the Church's teaching on pro-life, but I don't like the prohibition against contraception so I'll ignore it." Catholics, in general, cannot pick and choose which tenets to follow. Even more so, deacons MUST embrace ALL teachings and doctrines of the Catholic faith. He must teach and preach the whole of the Catholic faith and not simply what he likes.

Paul calls the deacon to be outstanding in the faith because he must fully embrace the faith in order to proclaim it to others. This is the other element of this promise and is the first specific role given to the deacon. He is called to proclaim this faith in word AND deed. Again, this emphasizes the mandate of embracing and believing the faith. How can the words of the deacon be effective if his own actions contradict the faith he is teaching?

Lastly, the bishop specifies that the faith the deacon is to preach and teach is the faith of the Gospel and of the Church's tradition. You might notice that throughout this blog I have used the words 'the faith' when referring to the what the deacon is to embrace, preach and teach. That was purposeful because the deacon is called to teach and preach THE faith, not his faith or that person's faith. He is to teach and preach THE faith of the Gospel and of the Catholic Church's tradition.

For the deacon, this promise primarily manifests ifself in his proclamation of the Gospel and the homilies he preaches. Yet, it is also a directive that the deacon teach the faith both in formal settings, such as classrooms, youth groups, retreats, etc. and informally by the way he lives his life.

The third promise of the deacon sets the stage for the final three promises as they all directly call one to live and minister specific elements of the faith. Next Friday we will explore the fourth promise. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 17:07 | link | comments |
rite of deacon

Is it liturgical worship or liturgical abuse?

A reader posted a comment on my previous blog entry in which they asked an excellent question, actually two questions, regarding liturgy and worship. The question was:

I came across a short clip of a 'Gospel proscession' that didn't seem very orthodox. Could you clarify if it 'dancing' around the church with the Gospel while the choir is singing the Acclaimation correct. Oh, and when were altars replaced by tables??

Here's the short clip:
http://www.churchbuilding.com/interactive/swf/html/sn_procession.html

What ever happened to the respect for the priesthood and more importantly God?

I thought these were such insightful questions that I decided to make them a part of the central theme of this blog and maybe the next few. The basic concern, which my reader's questions fall under, is what is appropriate and what is inappropriate with regards to liturgical worship in the Catholic Church?

The Church gives great latitude with regard to adapting the liturgy to the needs of the people. Cultural, ethnic, geographical and socio-economic factors have to be taken into account and incorporated into liturgical celebration partly to attract people to the Church but also to express praise and thanksgiving to God in the context of who we are as persons and as a community. With that being said, the Church also places restrictions and outright rubrics (rules) to a number of elements of liturgical worship. For example, just because the culture of the United States really enjoys pizza and beer (I sure do!) does not mean that we can begin using pizza dough in place of bread and beer in place of wine as the elements to be consecrated at Eucharist. There are strict rules as to the elements to be used.

With regards to the questions of my reader, which are very good and legitimate questions, I'll present the teaching of the Church. The Congregation for Divine Worship stated the following regarding liturgical dance:

...there are cultures in which this is possible insofar as dancing is still reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them...however, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture. Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.

I find this statement very appropriate for a couple of reasons: 1) it shows that the Church does have a flexibility with regard to worship as it recognizes dance in some cultures as integral to their worship. Examples mentioned were Ethopian, Syriac and Byzantine Rites and their cultures. At the same time, it states that dance is not appropriate in the Western Church and then goes on to give very vaild and logical reasons why it is inappropriate. Since, the video in which the reader directed me comes for a parish in Evanston, Illinois - and I confirmed that this most certainly is a Catholic parish - then it is my belief that the 'dance' or 'waltz' or whatever that was (it looked like a drunken stupor to me) was definitely not correct and contrary to the the Catholic Church's teaching in the U.S.

My reader's second question is even more common, especially in our modern times. The appropriate construction of the altar is just one of the architectual questions that has arisen in the past few years. I am going to explore some of these questions in the next couple of blogs, so I'll just focus on my reader's question today.

Paragraphs 298 - 301 of the General Instructions of the Roman Missal clearly identify what is to compose of an altar. Paragraph 298 says:

298. It is appropriate to have a fixed altar in every church, since it more clearly and permanently signifies Christ Jesus, the living stone (1 Pt 2:4; cf. Eph 2:20). In other places set aside for sacred celebrations, the altar may be movable. An altar is called "fixed" if it is attached to the floor so as not to be irremoveable; otherwise it is called "moveable."

In looking at this video, it is fairly obvious that 1) this is a Church and not simply a place 'set aside fo sacred celebrations' and 2) this 'altar' is very much moveable.

Paragraph 301 of the instruction refers to its construction by saying:

301. In keeping with the Church's traditional practice and the altar's symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone. In the dioceses of the United States of America, however, wood which is worthy, solid, and well-crafted may be used, provided that the altar is structurally immobile. The supports or base for upholding the table, however, may be made of any sort of material, provided it is worthy and solid. A movable altar may be constructed of any noble and solid materials suited to liturgical use, according to the traditions and usages of the different regions.

I think this 'altar' in the video violates every element of this paragraph. First, it is not of stone, although in the U.S. the altar can be made of wood. Yet, if it is made of wood, it must be 'worthy, solid and well-crafted.' This is a kitchen table for heaven's sake and an ugly one at that. My parents have a nicer table in their own kitchen. It is also not solid or well-crafted. One could buy this table at Nebraska Furniture Mart. Secondly, one can use wood for the altar only if it is 'structurally immobile' and we have already pointed out that anyone could pick up and move this table. Lastly, even a moveable altar must be of 'noble and solid material suited to liturgical use.' This 'altar' looks like it was simply taken out of the parish rec room and put into the sanctuary.

I want to close this blog by pointing out that I am not making any judgments on this parish, rather am pointing out the Church's teaching on these questions. There may be legitimate reasons for a simple table-like altar, such as a very poor parish or when a parish has to meet in its parish hall, gym or other location for practical purposes. I guess there could even be a legitimate reason for the 'liturgical dance' Gospel procession, although I couldn't imagine why. I will say that I could not determine if the video was taken in the context of a Mass or if it might have been at a non-liturgical parish celebration. Being that the priest was fully vested in a stole and chasuable (the chasuable can only be worn at Mass or in a liturgical celebration directly related to Mass, such as Exposition) it would seem to me that this was a Mass.

Since this most excellent question was brought up by one of my readers and I expect that some of my other readers may have liturgical or architectual questions, I invite my readers to post their liturgical question or insight on the comments section of this entry and we will explore them in the next few blogs. You can make comments anonymously and no one will know who you are. I'd expecially encourage you to post questions on iffy liturgical practices you have personally witnessed and that you have questioned.

I look forward to reading and responding to your questions/insights. Reading insights and comments from my readers is one of my greatest joys of hosting this blog. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 17:26 | link | comments (2) |
blog

I do still go to classes

We've been talking about so many world issues in the past few weeks (ie. Islam, abortion, stem cell research, etc.) that many of you may be wondering, "does Christ still go to classes at Kenrick or is blogging is full-time job now?" I assure you that I do still go to classes. In fact, it's been a busy couple of weeks here. I thought in today's blog,  I'd share what has been going on here at Kenrick recently.

Last Monday, I hade a History of Spirituality test that ware very tough. I survived it, though. I have a Spanish quiz today and my Sin and Eschatology test next Monday. Tuesday was an assessment day in which we evaluate the academic program, our learning environment, our human, spiritual and pastoral formation, our living environment and just about anything else you can think of associated with the seminary. Sometime this week, we are supposed to get a survey to assess assessment day. Hopefully, we won't get a survey to assess our assessment of the assessment day.

On Thursday, the faculty had an all-day inservice. This usually means the students have a free day, but at 1:30 pm that afternoon I received a phone call from the faculty asking me to give a short presentation at 2:00 pm. Nothing like a short notice of a important presentation to get the blood pumping. The presentation was on this very blog site and on blogging in general. My readers: you're famuous!!! The faculty was very impressed with the interaction between myself and my readers (hint, hint, hint...keep those comments coming - especially since many of the faculty are now reading the blog!).

The weekend was farily quiet school-wise. I spent Saturday working on my diaconate ordinations. Sunday morning I was at my parish. Sunday afternoon, I watched my Kansas Jayhawks (GO Jayhawks!!) win the Big 12 Championship!!! Finally, last evening I watched the NCAA Men's Basketball Selection Show in which the 65 teams for 'The Dance' were chosen (in case you haven't figured it out by now...I am a huge college basketball fan).

As you can see, it was a busy week last week, but I still was able to get some good recreation time and other work done outside of class. This week I have a Spanish quiz today and my Director of Seminarians is coming for a short visit today and tomorrow. The rest of the week will be focused on classes and continuing on my Masters thesis.

So, there you have it. I DO still go to classes at Kenrick in addition to many other activities. As I tell my friends, "with all the things I do both here at Kenrick and outside of the school, at least I stay out of trouble...theoretically). Well, that's about all that is happening here. My next blog will, in all likelihood, return to the topic of stem cell research as our Vice-Rector is attending a stem cell forum today and may have some interesting handout materials for me when he returns. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 05:54 | link | comments (1) |
blog

Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Promise #2

This is my second blog in the series discussing the promises made by a deacon at his ordination. After the first promise, in which we are called  to serve the Church, the second promise asks us to assist the priests and serve the people of God. In questioning the ordinand, the bishop says:

PROMISE #2: Do you resolve to discharge the office of deacon with humble charity in order to assist the priestly Order and to the benefit of the Christian people?

This is one of the most important promises, in my opinion, because it defines how one is to perform the duties of a deacon, it defines the purpose of the duties of a deacon and it defines for whom we are to perform the duties of a deacon. Each of the three elements is very important.

First, one is called to serve as a deacon with humble charity. In essence, this means that the deaocn is called to serve the People of God with complete, unassuming love. This service, though, must be performed humbly lest one comes to believe that it is I who do these works myself and not God that is accomplishing His will through me as an instrument of His divine plan. The deacon serves others in the same way in which we all serve God; with humble gratitude and love. We are the humble instruments of God for His people.

Secondly, the role of the deacon is to assist the ministers of the Church, especially the bishop and his priests. Paragraph #1569 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church say of the deacon: "At an ordination to the diaconate only the bishop lays hands on the candidate, thus signifying the deacon's special attachment to the bishop in the tasks of his diakonia." The deacon has this special relationship with the bishop because the primary task of the deacon is to assist the bishop's priests throughout his diocese. The deacon serves the bishop by serving his priests and together they serve the People of God. This is why the diaconate is called the "ministry of service."

Lastly, the deacon performs his duties 'for the benefit of the Christian people.' This is so important because the deacon is ordained to serve the People of God and to minister to their spiritual needs. He does this best when he assists the priest and when he offers himelf completely to the task of doing God's will. His focus must NEVER be for self gain or advancement at the expense of the People of God. Rather, his focus should be assisting the faithful in drawing ever closer to Almighty God.

Next Friday, I will expound upon promise #3, which concerns the mystery of faith. As always, if you have any questions, comments or just insights, please feel free to drop me a comment. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 21:13 | link | comments |
rite of deacon

Odds and ends...

Greetings! Sorry for not blogging in the past few days. Unfortunately, my computer is on a journey to the West Coast without me. It seems the DVD drive has gone bad. Now, those who have read my blog for awhile will remember that this computer is less than five months old, so needless to say I am UNthrillled about this most recent computer problem. Luckily, due to the kindness of our Scripture professor here and the genious of our technology coordinator, I have a loaner computer to use until my computer returns from its trip to California. BTW I have never gotten to go to Cal. but my computer gets to go :-(

Anyway, I will continue with my blog series on the Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate and the second promise of the deacon tomorrow. Today, since I am still getting used to my loaner, I thought we'd take a step back from any specific topic and just explore some of the Catholic-related stories in the world recently.

The first story is probably one that has already been heard by anyone who reads the newspaper or watches the news. The allegations of sexual abuse against Bishop William Skylstad of the Diocese of Spokane, WA broke this week (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601382.htm). Unfortunately, this is the highest ranking U.S. bishop to be accused of abuse. Bishop Skylstad denied the allegations, but it remains to be seen whether there is any validity to the allegations. Understandably, in light of these priest abuse issues of the past couple of years, every allegation must be taken seriously and investigated fully. It is my hope that these allegations are unfounded. I ask you to pray for Bishop Skylstad and for his accuser both for God's light to be shed on the allegations and for healing for the accuser.

Another item of interest is two bishops of South Dakota, who gave their comments on the abortion ban passed in that state (see my previous blog entry for more details). Needless to say, they were delighted and spoke of this as a positive step of efforts to "restore the rights of the unborn" (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601337.htm).

My third and final story of interest is a unique one. The U.S. Bishop's Catholic Communications Campaign is sponsoring a web site that debunks the myths and outright lies found throughout the book (and soon to come out movie), The DaVinci Code. The web site, www.jesusdecoded.com, refutes the claims of Jesus' alleged relationship with Mary Magdalene, the supposed blood-line and many other elements of the book that are both false and anti-Catholic. I recommend checking this site out to better understand the myths proported in the book, especially with the movie coming out. As Catholics (and even my other readers) it is good to arm ourselves against those, who through no fault of their own, are prone to believe anything that comes across the movie screen or their TV's. That sounds like a good topic for future blogging: the influence of the media in the world today. Let me know, via our comments section, if this sounds like a good topic of discussion and we will pursue it sometime in the next couple of weeks if I get a good response.

Tomorrow is the second installment of The Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 20:18 | link | comments |
blog

One small step for pro-life...one giant leap for mankind!

The title of this blog entry is my thought on the groundbreaking legislation signed by South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds today (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060307/ap_on_re_us/abortion_south_dakota). The legislation effectively bans nearly all abortions in the state, excluding abortion to save a woman's life (an unfortunate provision that has to be in abortion legislation currently to avoid being struck down in court). Gov. Rounds had a wonderful remark in which he said that he agrees with legislative sponsors that the test of a civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable and helpless people, and that unborn children are the most vulnerable and helpless. I wish I could paint that on every water tower in the midwest in big, red letters!!!

There are a couple of reasons that this legislation is so important. South Dakota, which has the fewest abortions in the U.S. (about 850 a year) is leading the way in what may become the new battleground for pro-life in the coming years. With the new makeup of the Supreme Court potentially setting the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade, the state legislation becomes very important. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the legality of abortions returns to a state by state legislative decision. This legislation is a preemptive strike against abortion in the their state. It also serves to bolster the potential for Roe v. Wade to be overturned on the federal level as it shows that there are entire states strongly restricting or banning abortion.

Troy Newman, president of the pro-life organization Operation Rescue based in my very own state of Kansas, said in response the the signing of the SD bill: "It is a grassroots movement that is propelling the legislatures, the governor, the president, and ultimately the Supreme Court to nullify the permissive abortion laws."

What is even more promising is that South Dakota is not alone. Late last week, Mississippi forwarded a similar ban out of committee and onto the legislative floor. Their governor has said if the bill passes he WILL sign it. Others states are on the heels of these two states. Seven other states are currently considering similar legislation, including Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and most recently, Missouri.

This is all great news and I am cautiously excited for our country and our society, but I also must warn my readers and even myself that we CANNOT stop fighting for the Culture of Life. These positive signs are just the first skirmishes of the intense battle for life in the coming months and next couple of years. Our duty as solders for life and warriors of God is to make our voice known, to shout out that life is prescious in ALL stages from conception to natural death and to aggressively make our voicese and God's will known at the ballot box, in our newspaper editorials and in our local neighborhoods!

This is one wonderful and blessed victory for life. We briefly celebrate this victory, thank God and prepare ourselves for the next battle for life. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 19:28 | link | comments |
blog

Stem Cells revisited

A close friend of mine, from Conception Abbey in northwest Missouri, recently commented that I have not mentioned the proposed state constitutional amendment before the Missouri Legislature that would prohibit any restrictions on the study of embryonic stem cell research in the state. He pointed out that this proposal could have a devastating impact throughout the United States if passed. My friend is right on both counts. We haven't devoted very much time to discussing stem-cell research, proposed legislation and its ethical as well as political impact. Secondly, this proposal could cause a chain reaction if passed. So this blog post and probably the next few posts are going to center around stem-cell research.

Today I want to look at the proposed amendment before the Missouri Legislature. The full text of this legislation can be read at http://missouricures.com/documents/Initiative.pdf. This is a link to the so called 'Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures' which more appropriately should be called 'Missour Coalition for Killing Human Embryos for Profit.' The reason I say this is because the very organization name is misleading. Their 'lifesaving cures' are not actually existing cures but only potential cures. Secondly, the potential 'lifesaving cure' of one person ACTUALLY kills another person. Lastly, the organization has dollar signs in its eyes when it comes to embryonic stem-cells. Their own web site says, "...it will help attract millions of dollars in research investments to our state. That, in turn, will generate more state tax revenues and quality jobs for Missouri." Basically, they're telling people to overlook the morality or practicality because the proposal can bring jobs and generate more taxes so your taxes can be lowered. In their mind, one CAN put a price on life!

Also, the hype surrounding the proposed benefits of embryonic stem-cell research greatly misleads the public. One of the central tactics being used to gather petition signatures to get this amendment on the November 2006 ballot is to tout all the cures embryonic stem-cell can bring. One of the most misunderstood things to stem-cell research is that advocacy groups fail to distinguish between adult and embryonic stem-cells in their arguments. The way their arguments are worded, one is led to believe that embryonic stem-cells are providing cures for all kinds of traumas and diseases. In reality, NO treatments or cures have come from embryonic stem-cell research thus far while there have been over fifty successful treatments from adult stem-cells. Unfortunately, embryonic stem-cell research is getting all the publicity while adult stem-cell successful treatments are being ignored. This is akin to sinking all your money into a race pony that MIGHT prove to be a good race horse while neglecting the chamption race horse you already own that has brought you tens of thousands of dollars already.

Even chairperson of the 'Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures' knows that embryonic stem-cells have not resulted in any treatments or cures. She says, "'All we're trying to do is to ensure the freedom in our state to pursue cutting-edge medical research and to ensure that when cures and treatments are found, Missourians have the same access as any other American..." When cures and treatments are found!!! They have been found via adult stem-cells and have been used successfully to treat patients!!! The Do No Harm web site has a wonderful page that compares the successful embryonic stem-cell treatments with successful adult stem-cell treatments.

Some of my readers might be saying, "I'm not living in Missouri, so how does this affect me?" And article in the News-Leader, an Ozark newspaper had the following comment:

The Washington, D.C.-based Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, which supports the Missouri initiative, said it would be the first ballot issue nationally to specifically protect the rights of patients to be treated with embryonic stem cell procedures (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051012/NEWS01/510120368).

This amendment, if passed, would be the first to constitutionally protect embryonic stem-cell research within a state. State constitutional laws supercede any local or state legislation. This would void any city, county or state legislation, present and future, that restricts embryonic stem-cell research in Missouri. Think of what would happen if dozens of states passed a similar amendment. The impact for other states and even federally is huge and the both sides know it.

In the end, my Conception friend is absolutely right. The outcome of this constitutional amendment could have massive repercussions throughout the United States. I leave you with three things. First, I encourage your to check out the following link to a blog entry from our very own Vice-Rector's blog site titled, Contemplating Life. Father Edward Richard is an expert moral theologian and this article, as well as all his articles on life, are top-notch! Secondly, if any of my readers are residents of the State of Missouri, DO NOT sign the petitions being circulated to forward this amendment and PLEASE vote NO if this proposal makes it on the ballots in November. Lastly, in my next blog on stem-cell research, I want to explore the facts and myths of embryonic and adult stem-cell research. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 12:54 | link | comments (2) |
blog

Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Promise #1

I hope all my readers are having a blessed and fruitful Lent. In these reflections on the diaconate over the next six Fridays, I hope to accomplish three things: 1) to give my readers the basic idea as to what a deacon promises when he is ordained, 2) to explain what responsibilities the Church places upon and expects of the deacon and 3) to give my own understanding and thoughts as to what these promises mean to me. Throughout these reflections, if anyone has any questions or comments regarding these promises, regarding the diaconate or even generally regarding the Church and its ministers, please feel free to ask. (Before reading this entry, please read the post "Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Preamble").

PROMISE #1: The bishop asks, "Do you resolve to be consecrated for the Church's ministry by the laying on of my hands and the gift of the Holy Spirit?"

In essence, the Church, via its bishop, is asking the ordinand if he is willing to serve the Church with the guidance of the bishop and the Holy Spirit. This may seem straightforward at first, but the question is much deeper than it seems. By looking at the key words in the question, one is able to see the depth of what is being asked. For example, the words 'be consecrated' have special meaning in the Church. When something is consecrated, it is set aside for a particular task. It is made holy. Basically, the deacon is being asked if he is willing to be set aside for the particular work of the Church.

The next words of importance are 'Church's ministry' and these contain a vital element of the promise. The ministry one is being ordained to is not his own ministry but the Church's ministry. He is to serve the Church and perform his ministry for the Church and in the name of the Church. He must not selfishly pursue only his own will and desires, but ,first and formost, he must pursue the will of the Church. In essence, the deacon is asked to give himself completely as a servant of the Church.

The words 'the laying on of my hands' are important and related to the last set of words. It is the bishop alone, as the successor to the Apostles, who has the power to ordain a man to serve the Church. Secondly, in Scripture, the laying of hands was used to delegate and commission one for a particular task (see Acts 9:17). Lastly, it is the bishop who, as the head of his diocese, represents the will of the Church and therefore gives the deacon the tasks which we mentioned above.

The last set of words that are the most important are: "by the gift of the Holy Spirit." It is only through the grace of God, imparted upon one through the Holy Spirit, that one can be consecrated to serve Him. Not only does the Holy Spirit consecrate a man for service to the Church, the Spirit also give the gifts necessary to accomplish the tasks set before the deacon. It strengthens him so that he may faithfully and humble assist the bishop, his priests and the People of God.

This first promise is so important, because it is necessary for the remaining five promises. Without the help of the Holy Spirit, the guidance and authority of the bishop and the understanding that one is being consecrated specifically for the Church's ministry, the ordinand cannot make the other promises. This promise is the foundation upon with the other five are built.

Next Friday, I will explore and explain the second promise in which the ordinand is called to serve with charity. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 16:58 | link | comments |
rite of deacon

Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate: Preamble

For the next six Friday's of Lent , I am going to explore the promises made by a deacon on the day of his ordination. Because this is a series that I will be doing for the six Fridays of Lent, I have created a special tag titled, Rite of Deacon, for these entries.

Before I begin discussing the first promise, I'd like to give a context of the ordination. An Mass of Ordination to the Diaconate is very similar to a Sunday Mass with a couple of extra elements added. Mass begins normally and continues to proceed normally until after the Gospel. Following the Gospel, an assistant to the bishop (usually a deacon) says, "Let Christopher John Rossman, who is to be ordained a deacon come forward." I stand and say "present." A designated priest (our Director of Seminarians) then says to the bishop, "Most Reverend Father, holy Mother Church asks you to ordain this man, our brother, to the responsibility of the diaconate." The bishop replies, "do you know him to be worthy?" The priest replies, "after inquiry among the Christian people and upon the recommendation of those responsible, I testify that he has been found worthy." The bishop then replies, "relying on the help of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, we choose this man, our brother, for the Order of the Diaconate." The congregation then responds saying, "thanks be to God." At this point, the bishop gives a homily, which he can either compose himself or can be the pre-written homily for ordination found in the ritual book. After the homily, I stand and approach the bishop. He then ask me six questions or promises, to which I reply, "I do."

That gives one a background in which these promises occur. My second post for today (a first for me) will begin talking about the first promise.

posted by: crossman at 16:31 | link | comments |
rite of deacon